Coexistent bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse

epidemiology, phenotypic spectrum, and clinical implications

Ratnasari Padang, Maurice E Sarano, Sorin V. Pislaru, Joseph F. Maalouf, Vuyisile T Nkomo, Sunil V. Mankad, Simon Maltais, Rakesh M. Suri, Hartzell V Schaff, Hector I Michelena

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

AIMS: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are common but the prevalence and significance of coexistent conditions are unknown. This study investigated the prevalence, phenotypic expression, and clinical significance of coexistent MVP-BAV. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective comparison of MVP-BAV and MVP-tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) prevalence including de novo echocardiographic analysis of all MVP-BAV patients between 2005 and 2015 was performed. The community prevalence of MVP-BAV was 2.7% vs. 3.4% for MVP-TAV (P = 0.45). Posterior mitral leaflet (PML)-MVP was the most common phenotype in both BAV and TAV (P = 0.38), but anterior mitral leaflet (AML)-MVP was twice more prevalent in BAV (31% vs. 15%, P < 0.0001). Among 130 subjects with coexistent MVP-BAV (81% men, 51 ± 16 years old), 31 (24%) exhibited AML:PML length ratio ≥3:1, termed large-AML prolapse (LAP-BAV), who had predominant BAV regurgitation when compared with those with non-LAP-BAV (P ≤ 0.001). An extreme phenotype of LAP-BAV with giant-AML prolapse and diminutive PML (GAP-BAV) was identified in 18/130 (14%) subjects. Compared with posterior-MVP-BAV, GAP-BAV patients were younger (42 ± 15 vs. 64 ± 12 years, P < 0.0001), had larger aortic annulus (28 ± 3 vs. 26 ± 2 mm, P = 0.01), and 61% had ≥ moderate BAV regurgitation (vs. 16%, P = 0.0007). Mitral repair occurred in 37/130 (28%) subjects. After median follow-up 5.5 months (4-83), 4/5 (80%) GAP-BAV patients required redo surgery for recurrent mitral regurgitation vs. 2/31 (6%) for non-LAP-BAV (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The community prevalence of coexistent MVP-BAV is comparable to MVP-TAV and their most common phenotype is posterior-MVP. However, anterior-MVP is twice as prevalent in MVP-BAV. A large-AML phenotype (LAP-BAV) with predominant BAV regurgitation affects 24% of MVP-BAV patients. An extreme phenotype of anterior-MVP (GAP-BAV) affects 14% of BAV patients; characterized by exceptionally large AML, diminutive PML, high mitral and aortic regurgitation prevalence, and high mitral repair failure rate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)677-686
Number of pages10
JournalEuropean heart journal cardiovascular Imaging
Volume20
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Mitral Valve Prolapse
Epidemiology
Tricuspid Valve
Aortic Valve Insufficiency
Aortic Valve
Bicuspid Aortic Valve
Phenotype
Prolapse
Mitral Valve Insufficiency

Keywords

  • bicuspid aortic valve
  • mitral valve prolapse
  • mitral valve regurgitation
  • mitral valve repair
  • prevalence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Coexistent bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse : epidemiology, phenotypic spectrum, and clinical implications. / Padang, Ratnasari; Sarano, Maurice E; Pislaru, Sorin V.; Maalouf, Joseph F.; Nkomo, Vuyisile T; Mankad, Sunil V.; Maltais, Simon; Suri, Rakesh M.; Schaff, Hartzell V; Michelena, Hector I.

In: European heart journal cardiovascular Imaging, Vol. 20, No. 6, 01.06.2019, p. 677-686.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8206ef5c07304ed4a70b12e639f19d77,
title = "Coexistent bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse: epidemiology, phenotypic spectrum, and clinical implications",
abstract = "AIMS: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are common but the prevalence and significance of coexistent conditions are unknown. This study investigated the prevalence, phenotypic expression, and clinical significance of coexistent MVP-BAV. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective comparison of MVP-BAV and MVP-tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) prevalence including de novo echocardiographic analysis of all MVP-BAV patients between 2005 and 2015 was performed. The community prevalence of MVP-BAV was 2.7{\%} vs. 3.4{\%} for MVP-TAV (P = 0.45). Posterior mitral leaflet (PML)-MVP was the most common phenotype in both BAV and TAV (P = 0.38), but anterior mitral leaflet (AML)-MVP was twice more prevalent in BAV (31{\%} vs. 15{\%}, P < 0.0001). Among 130 subjects with coexistent MVP-BAV (81{\%} men, 51 ± 16 years old), 31 (24{\%}) exhibited AML:PML length ratio ≥3:1, termed large-AML prolapse (LAP-BAV), who had predominant BAV regurgitation when compared with those with non-LAP-BAV (P ≤ 0.001). An extreme phenotype of LAP-BAV with giant-AML prolapse and diminutive PML (GAP-BAV) was identified in 18/130 (14{\%}) subjects. Compared with posterior-MVP-BAV, GAP-BAV patients were younger (42 ± 15 vs. 64 ± 12 years, P < 0.0001), had larger aortic annulus (28 ± 3 vs. 26 ± 2 mm, P = 0.01), and 61{\%} had ≥ moderate BAV regurgitation (vs. 16{\%}, P = 0.0007). Mitral repair occurred in 37/130 (28{\%}) subjects. After median follow-up 5.5 months (4-83), 4/5 (80{\%}) GAP-BAV patients required redo surgery for recurrent mitral regurgitation vs. 2/31 (6{\%}) for non-LAP-BAV (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The community prevalence of coexistent MVP-BAV is comparable to MVP-TAV and their most common phenotype is posterior-MVP. However, anterior-MVP is twice as prevalent in MVP-BAV. A large-AML phenotype (LAP-BAV) with predominant BAV regurgitation affects 24{\%} of MVP-BAV patients. An extreme phenotype of anterior-MVP (GAP-BAV) affects 14{\%} of BAV patients; characterized by exceptionally large AML, diminutive PML, high mitral and aortic regurgitation prevalence, and high mitral repair failure rate.",
keywords = "bicuspid aortic valve, mitral valve prolapse, mitral valve regurgitation, mitral valve repair, prevalence",
author = "Ratnasari Padang and Sarano, {Maurice E} and Pislaru, {Sorin V.} and Maalouf, {Joseph F.} and Nkomo, {Vuyisile T} and Mankad, {Sunil V.} and Simon Maltais and Suri, {Rakesh M.} and Schaff, {Hartzell V} and Michelena, {Hector I}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/ehjci/jey166",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "677--686",
journal = "European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging",
issn = "2047-2404",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Coexistent bicuspid aortic valve and mitral valve prolapse

T2 - epidemiology, phenotypic spectrum, and clinical implications

AU - Padang, Ratnasari

AU - Sarano, Maurice E

AU - Pislaru, Sorin V.

AU - Maalouf, Joseph F.

AU - Nkomo, Vuyisile T

AU - Mankad, Sunil V.

AU - Maltais, Simon

AU - Suri, Rakesh M.

AU - Schaff, Hartzell V

AU - Michelena, Hector I

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - AIMS: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are common but the prevalence and significance of coexistent conditions are unknown. This study investigated the prevalence, phenotypic expression, and clinical significance of coexistent MVP-BAV. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective comparison of MVP-BAV and MVP-tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) prevalence including de novo echocardiographic analysis of all MVP-BAV patients between 2005 and 2015 was performed. The community prevalence of MVP-BAV was 2.7% vs. 3.4% for MVP-TAV (P = 0.45). Posterior mitral leaflet (PML)-MVP was the most common phenotype in both BAV and TAV (P = 0.38), but anterior mitral leaflet (AML)-MVP was twice more prevalent in BAV (31% vs. 15%, P < 0.0001). Among 130 subjects with coexistent MVP-BAV (81% men, 51 ± 16 years old), 31 (24%) exhibited AML:PML length ratio ≥3:1, termed large-AML prolapse (LAP-BAV), who had predominant BAV regurgitation when compared with those with non-LAP-BAV (P ≤ 0.001). An extreme phenotype of LAP-BAV with giant-AML prolapse and diminutive PML (GAP-BAV) was identified in 18/130 (14%) subjects. Compared with posterior-MVP-BAV, GAP-BAV patients were younger (42 ± 15 vs. 64 ± 12 years, P < 0.0001), had larger aortic annulus (28 ± 3 vs. 26 ± 2 mm, P = 0.01), and 61% had ≥ moderate BAV regurgitation (vs. 16%, P = 0.0007). Mitral repair occurred in 37/130 (28%) subjects. After median follow-up 5.5 months (4-83), 4/5 (80%) GAP-BAV patients required redo surgery for recurrent mitral regurgitation vs. 2/31 (6%) for non-LAP-BAV (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The community prevalence of coexistent MVP-BAV is comparable to MVP-TAV and their most common phenotype is posterior-MVP. However, anterior-MVP is twice as prevalent in MVP-BAV. A large-AML phenotype (LAP-BAV) with predominant BAV regurgitation affects 24% of MVP-BAV patients. An extreme phenotype of anterior-MVP (GAP-BAV) affects 14% of BAV patients; characterized by exceptionally large AML, diminutive PML, high mitral and aortic regurgitation prevalence, and high mitral repair failure rate.

AB - AIMS: Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and mitral valve prolapse (MVP) are common but the prevalence and significance of coexistent conditions are unknown. This study investigated the prevalence, phenotypic expression, and clinical significance of coexistent MVP-BAV. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective comparison of MVP-BAV and MVP-tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) prevalence including de novo echocardiographic analysis of all MVP-BAV patients between 2005 and 2015 was performed. The community prevalence of MVP-BAV was 2.7% vs. 3.4% for MVP-TAV (P = 0.45). Posterior mitral leaflet (PML)-MVP was the most common phenotype in both BAV and TAV (P = 0.38), but anterior mitral leaflet (AML)-MVP was twice more prevalent in BAV (31% vs. 15%, P < 0.0001). Among 130 subjects with coexistent MVP-BAV (81% men, 51 ± 16 years old), 31 (24%) exhibited AML:PML length ratio ≥3:1, termed large-AML prolapse (LAP-BAV), who had predominant BAV regurgitation when compared with those with non-LAP-BAV (P ≤ 0.001). An extreme phenotype of LAP-BAV with giant-AML prolapse and diminutive PML (GAP-BAV) was identified in 18/130 (14%) subjects. Compared with posterior-MVP-BAV, GAP-BAV patients were younger (42 ± 15 vs. 64 ± 12 years, P < 0.0001), had larger aortic annulus (28 ± 3 vs. 26 ± 2 mm, P = 0.01), and 61% had ≥ moderate BAV regurgitation (vs. 16%, P = 0.0007). Mitral repair occurred in 37/130 (28%) subjects. After median follow-up 5.5 months (4-83), 4/5 (80%) GAP-BAV patients required redo surgery for recurrent mitral regurgitation vs. 2/31 (6%) for non-LAP-BAV (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The community prevalence of coexistent MVP-BAV is comparable to MVP-TAV and their most common phenotype is posterior-MVP. However, anterior-MVP is twice as prevalent in MVP-BAV. A large-AML phenotype (LAP-BAV) with predominant BAV regurgitation affects 24% of MVP-BAV patients. An extreme phenotype of anterior-MVP (GAP-BAV) affects 14% of BAV patients; characterized by exceptionally large AML, diminutive PML, high mitral and aortic regurgitation prevalence, and high mitral repair failure rate.

KW - bicuspid aortic valve

KW - mitral valve prolapse

KW - mitral valve regurgitation

KW - mitral valve repair

KW - prevalence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85066495718&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85066495718&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ehjci/jey166

DO - 10.1093/ehjci/jey166

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 677

EP - 686

JO - European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging

JF - European Heart Journal Cardiovascular Imaging

SN - 2047-2404

IS - 6

ER -